Aerobic Training With Blood Flow Restriction on Muscle Hypertrophy and Strength: Systematic Review and Meta-analysis.

ABSTRACT: de Lemos Muller, CH, Farinha, JB, Leal-Menezes, R, and Ramis, TR. Aerobic training with blood flow restriction on muscle hypertrophy and strength: systematic review and meta-analysis. J Strength Cond Res 38(7): 1341-1349, 2024-Integrating strength and endurance training in a single exercise session, even on separate days, can be physically demanding and time-consuming. Therefore, there is a growing interest in identifying efficient training methods that can concurrently enhance cardiovascular and neuromuscular performance through a singular training modality. This study conducted a systematic review and meta-analysis to explore the effects of aerobic training with blood flow restriction (AT + BFR) on muscle hypertrophy and strength gains in healthy individuals. Our study was registered at PROSPERO and used multiple databases (PubMed, Embase, Scopus, and Web of Science), seeking clinical trials that examined AT + BFR influence on muscle hypertrophy and strength gains in individuals aged 18-60 years and comparing with aerobic training without BFR. The risk of bias and method quality were assessed using the ROB2.0 tool and PEDro scale, respectively, and the quality of evidence was evaluated with the GRADE method. A random-effects model was used for meta-analysis, and standardized mean difference (SMD) was calculated for each outcome. Of 4,462 records, 29 full texts were assessed for eligibility, with 7 articles meeting the inclusion criteria. The results indicated that AT + BFR was more beneficial for inducing muscle hypertrophy than aerobic training without BFR (SMD [95% CI] = 0.86 [0.37-1.35]; I2 = 42%). Furthermore, AT + BFR was associated with greater improvements in muscle strength (SMD [95% CI] = 0.41 [0.10-0.72]; I2 = 0%). Despite the generally high risk of bias for both outcomes, these encouraging findings underscore the clinical significance of AT + BFR as a compelling tool for enhancing neuromuscular parameters.

Effect of aerobic and resistance exercise training on inflammation, endothelial function and ambulatory blood pressure in middle-aged hypertensive patients.

OBJECTIVE: The current randomized controlled trial tested the hypothesis that both aerobic training and dynamic resistance training will improve inflammation, endothelial function and 24-h ambulatory blood pressure (ABP) in middle-aged adults with hypertension, but aerobic training would be more effective. METHODS: Forty-two hypertensive patients on at least one antihypertensive medication (19 men/23 women; 30-59 years of age) were randomly assigned to 12 weeks of supervised aerobic training (n = 15), resistance training (n = 15) or a nonexercise control (n = 12) group. Inflammation, endothelial function, 24-h ABP and related measures were evaluated at pre and postintervention. RESULTS: We found that aerobic training and resistance training were well tolerated. Both aerobic training and resistance training reduced daytime systolic ABP (-7.2 ±â€Š7.9 and -4.4 ±â€Š5.8 mmHg; P < 0.05) and 24-h systolic ABP (-5.6 ±â€Š6.2 and -3.2 ±â€Š6.4 mmHg; P < 0.05). aerobic training and resistance training both improved brachial artery flow-mediated dilation by 1.7 ±â€Š2.8 and 1.4 ±â€Š2.6%, respectively (7.59 ±â€Š3.36 vs. 9.26 ±â€Š2.93 and 7.24 ±â€Š3.18 vs. 8.58 ±â€Š2.37; pre vs. post P < 0.05). However, only aerobic training decreased markers of inflammation (C-reactive protein, monocyte chemoattractant protein-1, vascular cell adhesion molecule-1 and lectin-like oxidized LDL receptor-1) and endothelin-1 and increased nitrite and nitrate levels (P < 0.05). CONCLUSION: Healthcare providers should continue to emphasize aerobic training for hypertension management given the established role of nitric oxide, endothelin-1 and chronic low-level inflammation in the pathogenesis of cardiovascular disease. However, our study demonstrates that resistance training should also be encouraged for middle-aged hypertensive patients. Our results also suggest that even if patients are on antihypertensive medications, regular aerobic training and resistance training are beneficial for blood pressure control and cardiovascular disease risk reduction.

Glycemic, inflammatory and oxidative stress responses to different high-intensity training protocols in type 1 diabetes: A randomized clinical trial.

AIMS: To investigate the effects of high-intensity interval training (HIIT) and/or strength training (ST) on inflammatory, oxidative stress (OS) and glycemic parameters in type 1 diabetes (T1DM) patients. METHODS: After a 4-week control period, volunteers were randomly assigned to 10-week HIIT, ST or ST + HIIT protocol, performed 3×/week. Blood biochemistry, anthropometric, strength and cardiopulmonary fitness variables were assessed. Outcomes were analyzed via generalized estimating equations (GEE), with Bonferroni post hoc analysis. RESULTS: ST, HIIT and ST + HIIT improved glycemic (HbA1c and fasting glucose) and antioxidant parameters (total antioxidant capacity, catalase and superoxide dismutase activities), but not plasma inflammatory (C-reactive protein, TNF-α and IL-10) or OS markers (thiobarbituric acid-reactive substances, 8-hydroxy-2-deoxyguanosine and oxLDL) levels. Noteworthy, interventions reduced soluble receptors for advanced glycation end products levels. However, intracellular heat shock protein 70 content increased only after HIIT. While daily insulin dosage decreased only in the ST + HIIT group, all training models induced anthropometric and functional benefits. CONCLUSIONS: Similar benefits afforded by ST, HIIT or ST + HIIT in T1DM people are associated with enhanced antioxidant systems and glucose-related parameter, even in a few weeks. From a practical clinical perspective, the performance of ST + HIIT may be advised for additional benefits regarding insulin dosage reduction.